Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mikelewis

(4,184 posts)
30. And to prove that... here's all the math...
Tue Dec 5, 2023, 08:42 PM
Dec 2023

can we estimate all the variables, place the spaceman in a suit with the double barrel, weigh him, fire off the two rounds, calculate his speed after the firing, figure out the resistance level and how much to remove from the momentum of the slugs... best assumptions here and then add that momentum to the current momentum of the astronaut please... best guesses here are fine

ChatGPT
To make a rough estimation of the scenario you're describing, we need to consider several factors and make a number of assumptions. Let's break it down step by step:

Mass of the Astronaut and Gear:

Assume the astronaut's mass (including the spacesuit) is around 100 kg (a round figure for simplicity, though spacesuits can be quite heavy).
The mass of a double-barreled shotgun can vary, but let's assume it's around 4 kg.
Shotgun Recoil:

The recoil of a shotgun depends on the specific ammunition used. Let's assume a standard 12-gauge shotgun shell, which typically has a muzzle velocity of about 400 m/s and a mass of about 28 grams (0.028 kg) per slug.
When both barrels are fired, the total mass of the projectiles is 0.056 kg.
Calculating Recoil Velocity:

According to the conservation of momentum,
�gun - �gun + � slugs ⋅ �slugs =0m
gun

⋅v
gun

+m
slugs

⋅v
slugs

=0, where

gun
m
gun

is the mass of the astronaut and gear,

gun
v
gun

is the recoil velocity,

slugs
m
slugs

is the mass of the slugs, and

slugs
v
slugs

is the velocity of the slugs.
Effect of Bullets Redirected Back at the Astronaut:

If the bullets are redirected back at the astronaut and hit him, their momentum would be added to his. However, since the bullets would lose energy due to sound and heat, not all their momentum would be transferred. For simplicity, let's assume 90% of the momentum is transferred back.
The bullets and astronaut are moving in the same direction after firing, so the momentum adds up, not cancel out.
Let's perform the calculations with these assumptions.

Finished analyzing
python
Copy code
# Given data and assumptions
mass_astronaut_gear = 100 # in kg (astronaut + spacesuit)
mass_shotgun = 4 # in kg
mass_slugs = 0.056 # Total mass of two slugs in kg (0.028 kg each)
velocity_slugs = 400 # Muzzle velocity in m/s

# Total mass of astronaut and gear
total_mass = mass_astronaut_gear + mass_shotgun

# Conservation of momentum to find recoil velocity
# m_gun * v_gun + m_slugs * v_slugs = 0 => v_gun = -(m_slugs * v_slugs) / m_gun
recoil_velocity = -(mass_slugs * velocity_slugs) / total_mass

# Assuming 90% of the slugs' momentum is transferred back to the astronaut
momentum_transfer_percentage = 0.9
effective_momentum_slugs = momentum_transfer_percentage * mass_slugs * velocity_slugs

# The effective recoil velocity after momentum transfer (adding because in the same direction)
effective_recoil_velocity = recoil_velocity + (effective_momentum_slugs / total_mass)

recoil_velocity, effective_recoil_velocity

Result
(-0.2153846153846154, -0.021538461538461562)
Based on the assumptions and calculations:

The initial recoil velocity of the astronaut and gear after firing the double-barreled shotgun is approximately

0.215
−0.215 m/s (negative sign indicating direction opposite to the bullet's motion).
After the bullets are redirected back and 90% of their momentum is transferred to the astronaut, the effective recoil velocity is approximately

0.022
−0.022 m/s.
This means that initially, the astronaut is propelled backwards at about 0.215 m/s. After the bullets hit him and transfer their momentum, his speed is reduced to around 0.022 m/s in the same direction. The significant reduction in speed is due to the partial transfer of momentum from the slugs to the astronaut. ​​

User
That's fine but they would still be moving and let's assume repeated firings... how fast in mph after 1 shot, 5 shots, 100 shots...
ChatGPT
To calculate the speed of the astronaut in miles per hour (mph) after multiple shots, we'll use the effective recoil velocity we calculated earlier. We'll then scale this velocity with the number of shots and convert it to mph.

The effective recoil velocity we calculated is approximately

0.022
−0.022 m/s per shot. Let's calculate the speed for 1, 5, and 100 shots:

Speed After 1 Shot:

The speed is simply the effective recoil velocity.
Speed After 5 Shots:

The speed is 5 times the effective recoil velocity.
Speed After 100 Shots:

The speed is 100 times the effective recoil velocity.
We'll then convert these speeds from meters per second (m/s) to miles per hour (mph). The conversion factor is 1 m/s ≈ 2.237 mph. Let's do the calculations.

Based on the calculations:

After 1 shot, the astronaut would be moving at approximately

0.048
−0.048 mph.
After 5 shots, the speed would increase to about

0.241
−0.241 mph.
After 100 shots, the astronaut would be moving at roughly

4.82
−4.82 mph.
These speeds are cumulative, assuming each shot adds the same amount of velocity and that all other conditions remain constant. The negative sign indicates the direction of motion is opposite to the initial bullet direction. Remember, these are rough estimates based on a simplified model of the situation. ​​

User
So as a propulsion method, this would only be viable if he only had two slugs and lots of powder...
ChatGPT
Yes, using a shotgun as a propulsion method in space, as depicted in your scenario, would be more effective if the astronaut has only a few slugs and a lot of gunpowder. This is due to several key factors:

Limited Increase in Speed per Shot:

As the calculations show, each shot only imparts a relatively small increase in speed (a few hundredths of a mph per shot). This means that to achieve significant speeds, a large number of shots would be required.
Practicality of Carrying Ammunition:

Carrying a large number of slugs would be impractical due to space and weight constraints. However, if the astronaut could reuse the same slugs with additional gunpowder, this would reduce the need for carrying a large amount of ammunition.
Efficiency of Momentum Transfer:

In your scenario, bending the barrels to redirect the slugs back towards the astronaut and then reusing them is a creative way to maintain the supply of slugs. However, the efficiency of this process is crucial. Realistically, each redirection and impact would result in some loss of energy and momentum, making the process less efficient over time.
Safety and Control:

Using a shotgun for propulsion in space poses significant safety risks, especially considering the need to precisely aim the weapon to control the direction of movement. Additionally, the impact of the slugs, even if the suit is bulletproof, could cause harm or damage the suit.
In summary, while the concept is intriguing and highlights some interesting physics principles, it's not a practical method for propulsion in space with current technology and safety standards. More conventional methods like chemical rockets or ion thrusters are currently more viable for space propulsion.

Isn't this forum supposed to be at least partially science-based? NCIndie Dec 2023 #1
How lovely... and your proof that it's wrong is? mikelewis Dec 2023 #2
I really hope this is all tongue-in-cheek. If so, that's one for you! Just in case... NCIndie Dec 2023 #5
Ok... please read a little farther down the post please... There is no plan for a shotgun based propulsion design... mikelewis Dec 2023 #7
I read it before I posted. NCIndie Dec 2023 #9
I'm not an AI robot and your challenge was based on scientific inquiry. I responded in kind... mikelewis Dec 2023 #11
The recoil JackSabbath Dec 2023 #28
The recoil pulls the gun away from you? Indeed... but not completely.... mikelewis Dec 2023 #29
Interesting topic.... Think. Again. Dec 2023 #3
I think you're missing the point... none of those are useful for extended space travel... or can reach similar speeds mikelewis Dec 2023 #4
My apologies... Think. Again. Dec 2023 #15
All of those have a terrible carbon footprint. mikelewis Dec 2023 #21
It's an interesting concept... Think. Again. Dec 2023 #35
This message was self-deleted by its author Duppers Dec 2023 #25
That is one way to win an arguement... mikelewis Dec 2023 #26
This message was self-deleted by its author Duppers Dec 2023 #27
My apologies. Duppers Dec 2023 #34
Interesting. You mean no CO2 emissions during the operation of the vehicle. NCIndie Dec 2023 #6
This isn't about the energy required to run it.. that's still a problem... for a bit... we first have to see.... mikelewis Dec 2023 #8
Innovation starts with skeptics being skeptical. I'll take that role. NCIndie Dec 2023 #10
I built this idea fighting A for the past year... lol... so thank you I do appreciate skepticism. It built this idea. mikelewis Dec 2023 #12
Be combative! NCIndie Dec 2023 #13
That is precisely why I am here... I have had my ass handed to me so many times on this forum.... LOL mikelewis Dec 2023 #14
He gets more than combative Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2023 #57
Not if construction is done... Think. Again. Dec 2023 #16
Ok. Namely....? NCIndie Dec 2023 #17
Namely what?... Think. Again. Dec 2023 #18
You're going to build a car with zero carbon footprint because of renewables+nuclear? NCIndie Dec 2023 #19
Yeah.... Think. Again. Dec 2023 #20
What about the force the projectile is exerting against the curved barrel? sl8 Dec 2023 #22
Correct! However... it's much less than you think... I was shocked too mikelewis Dec 2023 #23
I hate ads 😏 mikelewis Dec 2023 #24
And to prove that... here's all the math... mikelewis Dec 2023 #30
Here, I think, is the fundamental error - whether ChatGPT's or yours, I can't tell from the formatting muriel_volestrangler Dec 2023 #73
Well... if you say it... it must be so... mikelewis Dec 2023 #74
If you really want to understand, please take just one physics class caraher Dec 2023 #75
Holy monkey shit batman... you cracked it... fuck me mikelewis Dec 2023 #76
Subtext... mikelewis Dec 2023 #77
I did make one mistake caraher Dec 2023 #80
Post removed Post removed Dec 2023 #82
OK, some numbers for position (Python? Why Python? This is a physics problem, not a numerical procedure) muriel_volestrangler Dec 2023 #81
After firing the total momentum is 0... mikelewis Dec 2023 #83
Can you try to write better, please? Your questions, or messages, are obscured by your style. muriel_volestrangler Dec 2023 #84
And now specifically to your point... mikelewis Dec 2023 #31
Why this is actually inline with physics... mikelewis Dec 2023 #32
The apparent paradox arises from a simplified view of the situation and is resolved when considering the full complexity mikelewis Dec 2023 #33
This part of the argument is where chatgpt is completely botching the physics. Salviati Dec 2023 #37
I said that outloud and a goat appeared in my living room... mikelewis Dec 2023 #38
Chat GPT is not a content expert. Salviati Dec 2023 #36
You are most certainly correct... mikelewis Dec 2023 #39
I don't understand, what does the letter 'O' have to do with it!? OKIsItJustMe Dec 2023 #40
You are most certainly correct... mikelewis Dec 2023 #61
I wouldn't trust ChatGPT to count my toes accurately. It wasn't written to do that. OKIsItJustMe Dec 2023 #41
This is one of those things... Salviati Dec 2023 #43
Indeed! "What if!?..." OKIsItJustMe Dec 2023 #45
Breaking the tyranny of the rocket equation would be a hell of a thing! Salviati Dec 2023 #46
Interesting... mikelewis Dec 2023 #44
It's an EmDrive. Better tests eliminate it. Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2023 #54
There's still some dispute OKIsItJustMe Dec 2023 #58
The IVO has test in orbit, past the minimum 1 month pre-test orbit Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2023 #60
Frankly, I don't expect it to succeed either OKIsItJustMe Dec 2023 #63
Here's an experiment I am eager to see the results of OKIsItJustMe Dec 2023 #42
Very cool... mikelewis Dec 2023 #47
Here's the fix... mikelewis Dec 2023 #48
The problem is you have to carry those anvils. Salviati Dec 2023 #52
You only need two anvils... mikelewis Dec 2023 #53
"They're trying to move mass with electrons... they need to move mass with mass" Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2023 #55
Call me "Mikey Poopie Pants!" mikelewis Dec 2023 #56
He did refute them, and you acknowledged as much OKIsItJustMe Dec 2023 #59
I lied... mikelewis Dec 2023 #67
ok Ptah Dec 2023 #68
Why would I pretend such a thing exists? mikelewis Dec 2023 #69
This might help: Ptah Dec 2023 #70
Not logic. "view count" is not equal to "copy-paste" nor equal to "don't understand the math" Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2023 #62
Why on earth do you think I would be trying to use logic against you? mikelewis Dec 2023 #64
If you want to be taken seriously, and you clearly do, then don't be childish. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2023 #65
I'm rubber and you're glue... mikelewis Dec 2023 #66
Please read: An Alternative Theory of Inertia will Get Tested in Space OKIsItJustMe Dec 2023 #49
Yeah... mikelewis Dec 2023 #50
scrolling hack mikelewis Dec 2023 #51
Mag lev trains use electricity Progressive dog Dec 2023 #71
You are of course correct... mikelewis Dec 2023 #72
I like ColinC Dec 2023 #78
Thank you... this is fun as hell 😃 mikelewis Dec 2023 #79
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Is emission-less propulsi...»Reply #30